This week we learned about Public art, and just how much controversy surrounds it. Before this weeks topic I did not know very much about public art, besides the fact that I would occasionally see it, and it exists in various places around the world. For the most part when I thought about public art I would think about memorials in Washington D.C. as well as random sculptures in cities, and art at schools. To me these are the most commonly seen pieces of public art in my eye. What I really didn’t know about this public art is that there was so much anguish around public art and its existence. One of the more famous works of public art in the U.S. took 40 years before it was finished, “It took some 40 years to build the Washington Monument, which finally opened to the public in 1888 after decades of wrangling over its design and financing”(Doss,1).  Public art is not only huge monuments, and massive sculptures but a wide variety of works.

Public art comes in all sorts of ways, with around 22* different forms creating the entire category of public art. It comes in so many different forms because public art is, “as diverse as the people who view it.” I believe this is a very good representation of public art because it is both diverse in medium, and meaning. Since the artwork is available to all, it allows it to have both more and different meanings because of all of the different people that can view it. Each different person can interoperate the art differently leading to many different interpretations both good or bad. A major example of public art being interoperated like this is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which has conflicting meanings as a memorial, but only took a few years to build compared to the Washington Monument which took around 40. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial has conflicting meanings because the Vietnam war itself was a highly protested war, and now people see the memorial not as something to honor those who lost their lives, but it is a memorial showing all the people that lost their lives who shouldn’t have gone to war even because they were against the U.S. even being there. This is the kind of acknowledgment that must go into public art because there can be so many different sides and meanings to the artwork.

One of the reasons public art is so big and seen almost everywhere is because of its help towards Civic Improvement and its Place making abilities. I believe art helps to create something in a place that will make the surrounding area more homey. It gives the area a nicer feel, like it is developing, thriving and happy. “These early programs were guided by the idea that public art was a form of civic improvement and could help generate a shared sense of civic and national identity (Doss, 4). I completely agree with this idea that it helps the public have a shared view of something, and in a sense something to all have in common or be part of. In the list of types of public art two that really hit me as doing this are fountains and play equipment. We see these things daily but rarely see them as a form of art, but because of them there are focal points to towns, and nice meeting areas or spots for community engagement. By creating this type of public art and giving it relevance in the community it gives the artwork more of a meaning than just being art. I believe that public art adds enormous value to communities, and shouldn’t be as controversial as it is seen today.

*”Public art can be a sculpture, mural, manhole cover, paving pattern, lighting, seating, building facade, kiosk, gate, fountain, play equipment, engraving, carving, fresco, mobile, collage, mosaic, bas-relief, tapestry, photograph, drawing, or earthwork”(Doss, 2).

For this weeks Remixing Google Image Search the 5 words that I decided to use for my image were,

• Bear
• Sunset
• Waterfall
• Senses
• Technology

These were a mixture of ideas that I thought about while thinking about art. 3 of the pictures were of nature and things I think about with natural beauty. Technology came to mind because of how expansive art is becoming, and senses because of how we create art using our different senses for guidance. I believe that this image I created is a piece of art, because to me it is showing the contrasts of aspects that go into art and how I see them both portioned and as a whole. In Dissanayake’s writing she brings up the topic of postmodernism and how its art is so different, “The assumption that interpretation is indispensable to appreciating and even identifying artworks has opened a Pandora’s box that is now called “postmodernism,” a point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumptions about the elite and special nature of art” (Dissanayake, 19). Since this Pandora’s box has been open and there are so many new thoughts and ideas about what art is and how it doesn’t have to be part of the best works for something to still be considered art. I agree with her idea and how its nearly impossible for something to be determined not to be art, while someone else could be considered art.

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Copyrights are a new addition the the world today, and have made a huge difference in how people interact. Copyrights provide both value, and dangers that have a major influence on how the future will play out. Copyrights provide the protection that is needed in modern times for ideas and creations that without there will be unknown of who has created it. This allows people to take credit which is something that should be allowed. This is something that is very important in todays day and age so that people are not taking others creations. The dangers that come along with copyright laws is the fact that it is becoming more and more possible to copyright anything, and this will at a point become to much, copyrighting people, ideas, and things past creations, like DNA and people after a while. This has become prevalent in cases like Monsanto copyrighting its beans. Copyrighting can also limit creativity by making people disregard new creative thoughts by making people not want to try and make something new similar to the currently copyrighted. This limits people from making new things with slight differences because they have some similar attributes. Like in the TED talk taking different things and combining them with new technology is creating something completely different and shouldn’t have to deal with copyrights.”Taking the songs of the day and the old songs and remixing them to make them something different….Theres something called anime music videos”(Lessig). This is what makes copyright laws so confusing because it can come into contact with this creative remixing, and its hard to tell when something is an original idea like the remixing, or if it becomes infringement on a copyright.

I believe that there needs to be some limitations on copyright laws. There has to be some sort of limitation when copyrights are regarding sensitive topics like people and DNA. I feel like this is the most important regard for copyright laws.

I believe the thesis for the article, “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins” is about how technology has been developing along with art and how they have been developing together. “These changes are not simply technical effects. They contribute to maintenance and change of culturally conditioned conceptual patterns in the larger cultural historical context” (Jones, 21). Technology is a relatively knew concept, and it is constantly changing along with the world and art around us.

In addition to this I found a historical example from the reading that provided illustration of the thesis I talked about earlier. The example I found is about how some of the first computers were used to display pictures, “In the 1940s analogue computers were used to generate the earliest computer graphics and display them on oscilloscopes” (Jones, 22). This example shows how art and technology go together and have been developing in sync. They have been developing hand in hand since the start of computers and will continue to change the aspect in which we see art. We can see Jone’s thesis clearly in the world today in many different ways. One way that technology and art are evolving together is allowing people to create art in a completely new medium, as well as display it. Although its somewhat controversial, I think a great example is the medium of photoshop, and how it is displayed throughout society. It is one of the things almost every photo is being doctored by, and creating huge controversy over what is real and what is fake. Although it brings up a lot of issues, it is a great example of the combination of art and technology working together. Even with its bad reputation photoshop has many other purposes and is used to create beautiful art. In another outside source I found very similar notions about photoshop and how it is used with conjunction to art and technology. “Along the way, it became a lightning rod for controversy because of, among other things, the way it can be used to turn women’s bodies into unnatural magazine-cover icons, or its use by propagandists and your casually mendacious social-networking buddies who doctor their vacation snaps” (Manjoo,1). Although it has some of these bad reputations photoshop is one of the biggest applications combining art and technology that is present so often in our lives. Art has been something developing for millions of years, but because of technology it recently has had new mediums and ways for it to develop, and allow art to become a bigger part of our lives because of it.

Sources cited

Jones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

Manjoo, F. (2015, February 18). Photoshop at 25: A Thriving Chameleon Adapts to an Instagram World. Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/technology/personaltech/photoshop-at-25-a-thriving-chameleon-adapts-to-an-instagram-world.html?_r=0

While watching the video it made me think a lot about technology and how it is impacting the future. I do believe that video games are important, but I do not believe that they are the solution to our problems. As an active video game player, and what she said in the video, I came up with some ideas about video games somewhat counter to what she said but at the same time agree with some of her ideas. I feel like playing more video games isn’t the solution. As said in the TED talk, “So far, we’ve spent 5.93 million years playing World of Warcraft”(McGonigal). If that much time has already been used for one game, the amount of time that could have been used for work or real world applications from all games is unimaginable. A lot of the time people who play video games are trying to get away from real life, and I personally don’t think those kinds of people are going to change the world. I do think video games could be beneficial to critical problem solving and coming up with a solution though. From this I created my question. Is it possible to design a game, that players will enjoy, that will have real world problems simulated in a different medium? By this I mean could someone create a game like World of Warcraft with more real problems and quests that require critical thinking and team work to solve problems that they could also do in the real world, and through this actually make changes to the world? As well as that a game that going out and doing things in the real world help your virtual world character or game grow stronger or progress? These kinds of games are a way to change the world, but trying to make everyone start playing video games is not a sustainable or efficient solution in my mind, there is no point in trying to make someone new start playing games, while there are already so many people who want to be doing it.

1.) I define spirituality as you inner being, that is somewhat guiding you. This is something that acts on its own, and can’t be taught to someone. It is part of their essence or soul, and is part of what drives people and makes them different. This is part of what makes each person special or unique is because they all have different spirits inside of them, making them different people. I feel like spirituality is what connects people to each other and to the earth itself, allowing us to be the people that we are supposed to be.

2.) Spirituality differs vastly from religion for many reasons in my mind. Since I was raised in a religious household, religion was something that was forced upon me, and I was taught to do things in a certain way because of it. If the two were the same I feel like I would still be as religious as I used to be, but because my spirituality is not exactly in line with my religion, I do things differently. I did not feel inclined to continue to follow my some of my religious beliefs because I feel like on the inside that wasn’t what I wanted or needed to do, and I feel like that is from my spirituality differing from my religion.

3.) Creativity to me is the little something inside of you that wants to make something, done before, or original. It is a little flare that wants something to stand out a little more, or make something thats never been seen before. It does not necessarily have to be new ideas, but something that you haven’t thought of. This means that creativity can be found in almost anything, and has a wide range for what goes into it. Creativity greatly differs from person to person, and because of this we see so many new and interesting things coming from different people.

4.) The source for creativity can come from just as many different things as creativity creates. For each different person the source of their creativity could be something unique, while others all stem creative ideas from the same thing. The source for me, as well as many other cases is either seeing something, and wanting something else different, similar, or better. This is how my creative side is shown, when I see or think about something and want it in a different way, or slightly better suited towards me. Others creativity sprouts from imagination, as well as personal experiences. These are to me some of the easiest ways to find sources for creativity, but that is just because it works for me, while other ways may work well for others, each persons creative instinct can come from a different area.

While reading about creative spirituality, I first thought about what it really meant to me and how I saw it in my life. At what times am I the most creative, and is there anything that sparks my creativity? I thought about this for a while, and came up with some thoughts. For the most part I become creative when I see something else that inspires me. This could range from a TED talk, or a professor talking in class, to something I see while I’m walking around. Most often while I am just in my room or sitting at a desk I am by far the least creative. When I am constantly looking at new things or hearing ideas, my mind starts to race, and my creative side is unleashed. In the piece by Grey, I found a passage that was very similar to my way of creative thinking, “When an artists encounters an artistic subject, love opens all of his or her eyes. There is a rush of aesthetic pleasure, and something clicks simultaneously on every level. The artist’s spiritual eye recognizes the subject as a special aspect of the absolute. The holy presence of the subject’s unique beauty is its claritas, or radiance”(Grey, 73). To me this means there is something that sparks our creativity and passion in art, and it is what we see as beautiful. By experiencing something with our eyes and being stimulated we are better able to understand and feel the special qualities art can contain, and because of this I feel like the fact that I am more creative when I am stimulated by outside topics makes a lot of sense.

I’m curious how many other people’s creative sides are peaked from outside stimulation, or if many people can just sit in blank room, and become creatively stimulated? For me this feat is near impossible, except for the moments before I fall asleep. The only other time that my mind really starts racing is right before bed when I can just relax and do thinking and this sparks some of the creativity. I will often forget my trains of thought while doing this because I don’t remember what I was thinking about when I fell asleep, but it is interesting to think what in my mind allows me to do this and start up this creative thinking process. In the future I hope to better be able to spark my creative abilities, as well as notice others around me.

Grey, A. (2001). Art as Spiritual Practice. The Mission of Art (1st ed., pp. 205-233). Boston & London: Shambhala.

“Slender Man Stabbings: Why Are We so Fascinated by Horror? ( Video).” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0604/Slender-Man-stabbings-Why-are-we-so-fascinated-by-horror-video>.

This article is about how some 12 year old girls became infatuated with an online game called slender man. After meticulously planning, they killed one of their friends by stabbing them 19 times. The article brings up the topic and question, “Why do horror myths, cringe-inducing images of violence, and stories such as the Slender Man fascinate people so much, especially the young?” (Slender Man Stabbings). This was a very interesting article because it brings up very interesting topic of horror and how if can be such a strong piece, that can have people do things because of it. It directly relates to the article that we read, is the question about horror. The article said,” Why are horror audiences attracted by what, typically (in everyday life), should (and would) repel them? or how can horror audiences find pleasure in what by nature is distressful and unpleasant?”(Carroll,1). This was almost exactly the sam in the two articles. I am also very curious about this topic, because I find most horror to be unsightly to watch as well as to even think about in most cases.

“Digication E-Portfolio :: Chase Pools WRD104 Portfolio :: Americas Fascination with Horror Movies.” Digication E-Portfolio :: Chase Pools WRD104 Portfolio :: Americas Fascination with Horror Movies. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. .

This article was about death and how it is related to modern culture as well. It talks about just death in general, and how it is becoming so normal in our culture. It talks about how popular t.v. shows now have common themes of death, and it has become something that is very normal for television. People now enjoy the feelings of fear and suspense and because of this they are becoming more and more popular in the things that we watch. We are going out of our way to see these kinds of things and it is something that we fear. There is something about it that we are drawn to, ” That is, encountering things such as ghosts or Desdemona’s massacre in “real life” would be rather upsetting rather than entertaining. And, of course what is disgusting on-screen or on the page is genuinely disgusting. It is something that we would ordinarily seek to avert”(Carroll,2). It is odd how our culture has changed to drastically and the article talks about that and how some of the most popular shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead now focus on death and a horror aspect in them. This has changed the way that people perceive horror, and is almost desensitizing them to actual horrors in the world. I still become very afraid by zombies and some fictional horrors, but the aspect of death in any kind of sense does not have the same effect that it should. Watching people get shot or sliced in half in movies is not ‘scary’, but has become something I would call, ‘cool’.

After learning a little bit about different techniques I picked up some of the things I learned about in the Buffy The Vampire Slayer episode, “Hush”. The first thing I noticed was a Diegetic form of film that helped in the horror aspect. This was the part in the beginning of the episode with the girls voice coming from off the screen. Even though the voice was off the screen it was still a diegetic sound. It was had horror in it for me because it sounded far away, and the fact that the little girl was saying these weird things made it even creepier. If she had just be saying the things in a normal voice on screen the entire time it wouldn’t have had the same impact. Throughout most of the episode there was also a lot of non-diegetic sound. This included the background music that was playing for most of the episode as the actors were mostly silent. This music enhanced the images and added elements that were scary. Without the background mood sounds and music the pictures would have a much lessened effect. Finally something that I noticed that added to the overall horror in the show was part of the mis en scène. The thing that I noticed was the dark overlying overtones throughout the entire episode. There are lots of shadows, and darkness especially anytime something horrifying happens, and because of this is makes the mood for the show. The fact that shadows and dark lighting are used throughout are obviously used to create a creepier setting, and create some horror for the show.

The way that I dress and customize myself is a rather simple one. I enjoy smelling good, which mostly means just showering and wearing deoderant every day. I wear for the most part the same kind of outfits everyday from a style standpoint. The outfit consists of pants a shirt, and some sort of jacket or coat, and usually nike shoes. The shirts all all pretty simple, and usually loose fitting, and mostly from target, and have nothing on them but a plain color. I stopped really caring about brands that I wear, and just kind of wear colors that I like, and use that to show what kind of person I am. I’m not the kind of person that will freak out over brands, and will wear whatever pretty much with comfort, and practicality being top requirements. I kind of give off a plain vibe I feel like from the types of clothes I wear, I feel like this because of the lack of brand names that I wear. The fact that I do wear nikes somewhat counteracts that, but at the same time they are also incredibly common. For the most part I show of a minimalist mentality from what I wear because it is all very inexpensive clothing.

I make the choices to wear what I do, because I don’t feel the need to buy fancy clothes when I can find nearly the same thing for cheaper with a different label on it. I feel like it can be a big waiste when people spend tones of money on all of these designer clothes, when I can wear the same kind of things for much cheaper. I do think that how you dress expresses what kind of person you are, but to me wearing fancy brands doesn’t make you any better of a person. By wearing primarily cheap clothes I am able to have much more clothes, and just wear them for the functionality of covering my body and keeping me warm.

Besides functionality I don’t really have any other reason for the types of clothes I wear, or how I present myself. If I am given clothes or something to wear, I will most likely just wear it. I have some specific styles and tastes that I do not like to wear, but that is purely because I do not feel comfortable in it, or I don’t think I look good in it. I will wear clothes that I personally feel good in, as well as clothes that I believe I look good in. This is purely my kind of style, and is not based around a brand or type of clothes. For to part about body adornment I have pierced ears. I actually just got them pierced today mostly on a whim, and not for any particular reason. I had thought about getting them done for a very long time, mostly because I thought it would be a fun and new kind of thing to do, and today finally it happened. I’m not exactly sure if it will make people act differently around me, but I am curious to see if I will be treated any differently because of being a guy and having my ears pierced.

Over the years my style of dress has changed slightly, but for the most part it has stayed with the fact that I wear clothes that are comfortable and functional. When I was younger I had a different kind of style for clothes that I wore, and didn’t mind as much what I was given to wear. As I became older I grew into my own type of fashion sense more so, in the way that I don’t like to wear certain clothes, like v-necks. When I was younger though I would almost always wear two blue shirts over each other with shorts, and some sort of jacket, and I would wear this rain or shine. While growing up I slowly adopted the normality of wearing pants, as well as only one shirt at a time. One piece of clothing that I really enjoy wearing is flannels though, and that started at a young age and has stayed with me ever since.

My family did not pressure me with any kind of values or beliefs around the way I dressed and were pretty much fine with anything that I would want to wear. I grew up in a Jewish household, so I’m not sure if that makes a difference on how I was effected in this way, but my parents were always very understanding and helpful in allowing my siblings and I to wear whatever we wanted as long as it was appropriate. I feel like in the values and beliefs of the community around me are pretty similar to mine, in the fact that they do not mind much what a person is wearing or makes themselves look, as long as it is not to far from the normal. Here at University of Oregon, the normal is a little bit more out there compared to where I am from, so you really have to do something big if you want to stand out around here. The people around me for the most part dress very similar to me, and because of that I feel very comfortable going out, and not feeling like everyone is looking at me, which is a big part of the way I like to dress. I do not enjoy being a huge eye sore, or center of attention and for that reason I always try and wear clothes that will make me fit in with my peers.